Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-28 11:59:10 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B88E699AE7CCDFE8D3E71439729CCE87DD3E0228FDCDF2488A9F4F4FC0E79519
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is an attempt at face-saving by way of disinformation. A competent child-focussed + serious organisation wouldn’t have needed ‘clarification’ of information clearly detailed in the review itself. The early ‘analyses’ clearly weren’t as they couldn’t have read the review. https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1782551222563553528
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B88E699AE7CCDFE8D3E71439729CCE87DD3E0228FDCDF2488A9F4F4FC0E79519
  • createdAtMillis - 1714305550782
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1782551222563553528B88E699AE7CCDFE8D3E71439729CCE87DD3E0228FDCDF2488A9F4F4FC0E79519